united states final environmental agriculture impact...
TRANSCRIPT
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March, 2010
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Bozeman Municipal Watershed
Bozeman Ranger District Gallatin National Forest Gallatin County, MT.
Mystic Lake circa 1880
Mystic Lake circa 1980
BMW-0000375
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all
its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,
parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political
beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived
from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director,
Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC
20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
BMW-0000376
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
i
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Gallatin County, Montana
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Mary Erickson
10 E. Babcock St.
PO Box 130
Bozeman, MT 59771
For Information Contact: Lisa Stoeffler OR Jim Devitt
3710 Fallon St., Ste C. 10 E. Babcock St.
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman, MT 59771
406/522-2520 406/587-6749
Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement responds to the desire of the
Gallatin National Forest to implement fuel reduction activities in the portion of the
National Forest that is the City of Bozeman Municipal Watershed. The impact statement
documents the analysis of the proposal to implement these activities and five alternatives
to the proposal. The activities proposed for fuel reduction are thinning and partial harvest
in mature timber stands, thinning in small diameter timber stands, prescribed burning in
these stands following thinning and harvest, and broadcast burning in less dense stands of
timber. Alternatives to the Proposed Action are variations on the amounts and location of
these activities and variations in harvest methods; tractor harvest, cable harvest, or
helicopter harvest. Six alternatives have been analyzed in this document.
BMW-0000377
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
ii
SUMMARY
The Gallatin National Forest proposes to implement fuels reduction activities to reduce
the potential for severe and extensive wildfire in the Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek
drainages. The area affected by the proposal includes the City of Bozeman Municipal
Watershed. This action is proposed because of the fuel conditions in the drainages which
consists of forested stands of generally mature timber. Analyses and fire risk assessments
of the area have concluded there is a high risk to the integrity of the watershed should
there be severe and extensive wildfire. This would affect the quality of the water for
Bozeman’s domestic use, it would cause a safety concern for the recreating public and
firefighters, and a wildfire started on the National Forest could enter into the wild land,
urban interface to the north of the forest boundary.
The Forest Service has worked with the City of Bozeman and other interest groups to
develop the issues and alternatives for this Final Environmental Impact Statement. The
six alternatives address the significant issues by varying the types of fuel reduction
treatments and the amount of acreage treated. These activities include partial thinning in
mature stands, thinning of excess standing fuels in small diameter regenerated timber,
and broadcast burning in less dense forest. Each of these alternatives accomplishes the
purpose of the project in different ways and each has differing effects on resources such
as water quality, scenic quality, fisheries and soils.
Chapter 1 of this document discusses the purpose and need for the project and gives a
more detailed discussion of the background. Chapter 2 describes the alternatives in detail
and gives a summary comparison of the alternatives. Chapter 3 is where you will find the
analysis and disclosure of effects for all the issues.
A separate summary document accompanies the FEIS and is available for review.
BMW-0000378
Table of Contents
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need For Action………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 1-1
Document Structure…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ch 1-1
Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 1-1
Purpose and Need For Action…………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 1-13
Proposed Action……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 1-14
Relationship to Forest Plan……………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 1-17
Decisions to be Made………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ch 1-20
Public Involvement………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 1-21
Issues……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 1-22
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action………………………………………………….. Ch 2-1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 2-1
Alternatives Considered in Detail……………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 2-1
Alternative 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 2-1
Alternative 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 2-1
Alternative 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 2-2
Alternative 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 2-7
Alternative 5………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 2-9
Alternative 6………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 2-11
Features Common to all Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………. Ch 2-15
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detail Study…………………………………………. Ch 2-23
Comparison of Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………………. Ch 2-26
Chapter 3. Affected Environments and Environmental Consequences……………………………. Ch 3-1
Topic #1 Fire and Fuels…………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-3
Topic #2 Water Quality…………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-31
Topic #3 Fisheries…………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-53
Topic #4 Visual Quality- Scenery……………………………………………………………………………. Ch 3-93
Topic #5 Inventoried Roadless Area……………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-149
Topic #6 Lynx……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-171
Topic #7 Goshawk…………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-193
Topic #8 Forested Vegetation………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-211
Topic #9 Recreation………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-257
Topic #10 Economics………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-267
Topic #11 Air Quality………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-279
Topic #12 Weeds………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ch 3-291
Topic #13 Soils………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-317
Topic #14 Black-Backed Woodpecker……………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-347
Topic #15 Grizzly Bear…………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-355
Topic #16 Grey Wolf……………………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-369
Topic #17 Bald Eagle………………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-375
Topic #18 Migratory Birds………………………………………………………………………………………… Ch 3-381
BMW-0000379
Topic #19 Wolverine and Marten Ch 3-389
Topic #20 Elk and Other Big Game………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-401
Topic #21 Other Sensitive Species not Affected …………………………………………………….. Ch 3-417
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity …………………………………………………………… Ch 3-421
Unavoidable Adverse Effects……………………………………………………………………………………. Ch 3-421
Irreversible and irretrievable ………………………………………………………………………………….. Ch 3-421
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ………………………………………………………………………. 4
Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement……………………………………………………. Ch 4-2
Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. G1-G11
Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. L1-L23
Appendix A
Detailed Description of Treatments………………………………………………………………………………. A1-A14
Appendix B
Best Management Practices…………………………………………………………………………………………. B1-B14
Appendix C
Response to Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………….. C1-C45
Appendix D
Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinion (BO) ……………………………………………… D1-D95
BMW-0000380
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 1
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Document Structure
The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant
Federal and State laws and regulations. This Final Environmental Impact Statement
discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result
from the proposed action, the implementation of fuels reduction activities, and
alternatives to the proposed action. The document is organized into four chapters:
� Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the
history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the
agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also discusses
how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal.
� Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a
more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative
methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on
significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also
includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the
environmental consequences associated with each alternative.
� Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter
describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other
alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource issue.
� Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers
and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact
statement.
� Appendices: The appendices provide more information to support the analyses
presented in the environmental impact statement.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources,
may be found in the project planning record.
Background
Since 2003, three separate landscape scale forest condition analyses have been completed
within the study area, including one conducted by the Forest Service. The “Sourdough
Creek Watershed Assessment”, (Bozeman Watershed Council, Bozeman, 2004) was a
study contracted by a private interest group that provided baseline resource information
and identified conditions which limit watershed integrity and function within the
Bozeman Creek watershed. This analysis showed that the Bozeman Creek municipal
watershed is “at risk of high severity fire and fuel reduction measures may be necessary
to protect water quality from extensive sediment delivery”. The Bozeman Watershed
BMW-0000381
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 2
Council has recommended the Forest Service reduce the heavy fuel loading through
vegetative fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, timber harvest and thinning.
The City of Bozeman contracted with Western Groundwater Services to complete a
Source Water Protection Plan focusing on the water supply sources for Bozeman’s public
water system. The report studied the potential impacts that could occur to these sources
and identifies activities the city could use to protect these source waters. It concluded
that wildfire is the highest potential threat to the Hyalite Creek and Bozeman Creek
watersheds. The report states, “a significant wildfire in one drainage would likely enter
the other resulting in a complete shutdown of the City of Bozeman water treatment plant
during runoff events” (City of Bozeman Source Water Protection Plan, Western
Groundwater Services, Bozeman, 2004).
The Gallatin National Forest conducted a watershed analysis and risk assessment for the
entire 50,000 acre Bozeman Municipal Watershed (Bozeman Creek drainage and Hyalite
Creek drainage) in 2003. Initial assessment indicated that both Bozeman Creek and
Hyalite Creek should be analyzed together because of their proximity and similar
vegetative conditions. Fire simulation models showed that a large fire started in either
Bozeman Creek or Hyalite Creek could easily burn into the adjacent drainage, resulting
in simultaneous impact on both major sources of city water supply. Like other studies, a
key finding of this assessment was that burned areas could become significant sources of
sediment and ash delivery to streams. Major rainfall or runoff events following a wildfire
could result in heavy sediment loads that would exceed the capacity of the city’s water
treatment plant. Under such conditions, which could last from days to weeks and persist
for several years following a major fire event, the city could be incapable of meeting
water demand, resulting in a critical shortfall of the local water supply. Another
conclusion of the Forest Service assessment was that a major wildfire within the
municipal watershed would pose significant danger to both firefighters and the recreating
public due to limited road access in these areas. These findings helped Forest Service
managers determine that both Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages were high priority,
full suppression areas in the event of a wildfire (USFS, Bozeman Municipal Watershed
Risk Assessment. Bozeman, MT, 2003).
These studies, coupled with discussions involving local and state government officials,
prompted Gallatin National Forest personnel to begin working with key stakeholders to
find solutions to the serious fuels situation and to protect the long term municipal
watershed health. Watershed sedimentation models were used to identify the limitations
on the areas of potential treatment that could occur in the drainage and remain within
Forest Plan standards.
The Bozeman Ranger District has worked with the following groups and organizations to
discuss the assessment findings and potential activities relative to the identified
watershed risks:
• Bozeman Watershed Council
• Bozeman City Commissioners
• Bozeman City Staff
BMW-0000382
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 3
• Montana Department of Natural Resources
• Sourdough & Rae Fire Department
• Gallatin County Commissioners
Based on these findings and collaborative discussions, the Bozeman Ranger District
proposes to implement a fuels reduction project within the Bozeman Creek and Hyalite
drainages and to begin restoration of the fire-adapted ecosystem.
BMW-0000383
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 4
BMW-0000384
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 5
Restoration of Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
(Exerpted from Mimicking Nature’s Fire, Restoring Fire-Prone Forests in the West,
Stephan F. Arno and Carl E. Fiedler, Island Press, 2005, page 39).
“The philosophy of restoration forestry seems intuitively sensible: To the extent feasible,
return the vital natural fire process and its useful effects to forests that evolved under its
influence.”
“The compelling case for forest restoration today parallels legendary ecologist Aldo
Leopold’s call for watershed restoration early in the 20th century….Although natural
fires can be returned to their historical role in some secluded backcountry areas with
mixed or stand replacement fire regimes, we must rely on judicious tree cutting (at least
initially) and prescribed burning to restore most other fire-prone forests in the West.”
p.203
“Studies of fire history and forest succession coupled with decades of experience in fire
behavior and suppression shows that fuels in today’s forests differ markedly from those
associated with the historical understory and mixed fire regimes (Arno 2000, Quigley,
Haines, and Graham 1996)….Studies focused on historical understory and mixed fire
regimes commonly reveal that the structure of contemporary stands contrasts with pre-
1900 conditions, with many current stands being outside the range of historic variation
(Agee 1993, Arno 2000, Morgan and others 1994)….The historical stand was much more
likely to survive the average fire… .Absent fire, the understory trees out-compete the old
trees for moisture and nutrients. The old trees loose vigor and often succumb to insects,
disease, or the stress imposed by burning in even low- to moderate-intensity fires (Arno,
Scott, and Hartwell 1995, Biondi 1996).” Pp.31-32
“Today, the concept of restoration forestry is broadly accepted by federal land managers
but is scarcely known to the public. Restoration forestry in its many forms is being
implemented in diverse forest types in on different ownerships across the West….Present
knowledge is sufficient to carry us beyond today’s mostly small, isolated projects toward
larger treatment areas and landscape-scale strategies. However, despite deteriorating
forest conditions and unprecedented fire hazard across millions of acres, the proposition
that restoration forestry is an ecological and practical imperative has not gone
unchallenged.” P.12
Current Vegetative Condition
The Bozeman Municipal Watershed analysis area can be characterized as a landscape
dominated by steep canyons and timbered slopes in the lower reaches of Bozeman and
Hyalite creeks. Dominant vegetative types communities include Douglas-fir and
lodgepole pine. There are also minor amounts of aspen, some grassland and sagebrush
sites, and grassland/meadows where Douglas-fir is encroaching. Douglas-fir generally
occurs on the warmer, drier aspects (south-west), and lodgepole pine on the cooler,
moister aspects (north to east). Many of the middle to upper slopes that are cooler and
BMW-0000385
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 6
moister have a mixture of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine, as well as Englemann spruce
and small amounts of subalpine fir.
The entire Hyalite and Bozeman Creeks area is approximately 91 percent forested with
lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Englemann spruce and whitebark pine. The
general area is composed of cool to moist Douglas-fir habitat types (about 18 percent) on
the lower elevations facing south and west, with cooler and moister subalpine fir habitat
types at the higher elevations or on the lower elevations facing north and east (about 82
percent). The most common habitat types include: subalpine fir/twinflower, subalpine
fir/grouse whortleberry, subalpine fir-whitebark pine/grouse whortleberry and whitebark
pine
Forested stands are predominantly single-storied, but two-storied and multi-storied stands
also occur across the project area. Stand composition ranges from a mix of Douglas-fir
and lodgepole pine (about 5 percent), pure Douglas-fir (26%), lodgepole pine (about 44
percent) to a mix of subalpine fir, Englemann spruce and lodgepole pine (15%).
Whitebark pine stands are found at the highest elevations (and comprise about 11 percent
of the forested area). About 88 percent of the stands within the entire general area are
moderately to well stocked with cover from 40% to 90%.
Basic timber stand information for the project area is based on intensive and quick plot
stand examinations and mathematical regression estimates. Tree densities range from
120 to 4400 trees per acre. On steep, north and northwest-facing slopes, stand densities
are at the higher end of the range with 200 to 500 trees per acre greater than 5 inches
diameter at breast height. On the more gentle slopes, overall densities are highly
variable, but densities in trees greater than 5 inches diameter at breast height are between
200 and 300 trees per acre. Average stand diameters range from 1 to 15 inches with the
majority between 6 and 9 inches at breast height. Tree heights typically average less than
70 feet. Stands in both drainages are predominantly in the mature and older age/size
class (72%) with fewer stands labeled as seedling or sapling (18%) as shown by the
following tables.
Table 1. Forest Size Classes In Bozeman Creek (based on 17,317 forested acres)
Successional Stages Acres Successional Stage Percent
Forested Grass 138 <1%
Seedling 140 <1%
Sapling 1,496 9%*
Pole 1,636 9%*
Mature 8,287 48%
Old Growth 5,620 32%
BMW-0000386
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 7
Table 2. Forest Size Classes In Hyalite Creek (based on 20,641 forested acres)
Successional Stages Acres Successional Stage Percent
Forested Grass 486 2%
Seedling 1,075 5%
Sapling 3,731 18%
Pole 2,329 11%
Mature 7,247 35%
Old Growth 5,773 28%
Lodgepole pine old growth is found at all elevations and aspects. This forest type has a
natural fire frequency that ranged from thinning fires on a 35 to 40 year frequency to
stand replacing fires approximately every 150 to 200 years. Without periodic
disturbances like fire, subalpine fir eventually dominates. Subalpine fir old growth is
found at most elevations and aspects with a natural fire frequency similar to lodgepole.
On Douglas-fir sites, natural fire frequency ranges from 35 to 45 years.
Existing Fuels Condition
Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks both drain to the north into the Gallatin Valley. The terrain
is steep with many small side drainages flowing east and west into the main streams.
These minor drainages create terrain features of alternating north and south aspects that
repeat up and down both sides of Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks. One exception is the
divide between the two drainages where the slopes are gentler as the ridge tops become
more broad and rounded. Some of the terrain falls to the north toward the valley, mainly
within 1 mile of the forest boundary, in the northern part of the proposal area. This
complex terrain with all aspects represented (dry southerly and west to cool, moist
northerly and east) results in vegetative patterns and fuel conditions that are also
complex. Elevations in the area range from about 5300’ at the mouths of the canyons to
over 7800’ on the higher ridges.
The forested landscape in the proposal area was more open under historic conditions,
particularly on the high energy aspects (southerly to west) that tended to burn more often.
The trees were more widely spaced apart due to low intensity surface fires that tended to
thin out the smaller trees (underburning). A low intensity or cool fire is one that has
minimal impact on the site. This type of fire burns in surface fuels consuming only the
litter, herbaceous fuels, and foliage and small twigs on woody undergrowth, but can still
kill small conifers. Very little heat travels downward through the duff. The effects of
this type of fire are considered low severity. There were also more natural openings
where more intense burning created mosaics of surface fire and crown fire. This type of
burn is considered mixed or moderate severity. This tends to occur more on the cool,
moist sites that burn under less common drought conditions. Moderate severity fires can
pose a threat to water quality.
BMW-0000387
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 8
Fire along with insects and disease has been the major ecological disturbance to the area,
which is typical of western coniferous forests. Timber harvest and fire suppression have
replaced wildfire as the primary disturbance process. Biomass accumulates faster than it
decomposes in these dry forest types of the interior West. Fire is the ecological force that
restores balance to these ecosystems. The decrease in fire occurrence in the ecosystem
has disrupted the process, which adds to available fuel and changes forest structure.
These changes increase the potential for uncharacteristically severe surface fires that can
initiate and sustain crown fires (Graham et al, 2004, pg.35). The natural cleansing and
renewal process that natural fire disturbance brings has been mostly eliminated.
The forest landscape cover type is dominated by mature forest as described above. The
past 60–80 years of successful fire suppression has eliminated the low intensity
underburning that occurred historically. The understory vegetation, particularly of shade
tolerant tree species, flourishes in areas where it was typically killed by frequent low
intensity, surface fires. Forested stands have become dense and crowded with increased
ladder fuels (attached low branches close to the ground, and small trees growing up into
the crowns of larger trees). Dead and dying trees and accumulated surface fuels have
increased. These fuel conditions set the stage for wildland fires to potentially burn
extensively as active crown fires, rather than underburns or mosaics of light surface fire
and patches of crown fire.
Historically, undergrowth and ladder fuels are removed by the low intensity fire, resulting
in little to no mortality in mature trees (Fischer, Wm. and B.D. Clayton, 1983, Fire
Ecology of Montana, Forest Habitat types East of the Continental Divide, INT General
Technical Report 141, 83pp.). Ladder fuels are an important factor in a fire reaching the
crowns (tops) of the trees, which is usually fatal to an individual tree. A fire may become
very severe, under the right weather conditions, such as drought and high winds. The fire
may spread through the crowns at high intensity, killing entire stands (stand replacement
fire), consuming large woody fuels and removing the entire duff layer over much of an
area. The effects of this type of fire are considered high severity. These types of fire
pose a threat to water quality.
Along with the fuel conditions, weather and climate, and physical setting are the factors
that influence fire behavior (Graham et al, 2004, pg.17). Fire behavior is the way fire
ignites and spreads. Climate can influence when fires will occur and readily burn. The
climate is cool and dry, with periods of heavy snow in winter followed by spring rains. A
hot, dry period usually dominates in July and August. Average annual precipitation is 25
inches at 5300’ and increases with elevation (Sourdough Creek Watershed Assessment,
2004). The fire season typically runs from late June through September. Wind is the
primary weather factor affecting fire spread. The wind prevails from the west and
southwest in this area. However, terrain features such as canyons can funnel and steer
the winds in the direction of their flow, which could be southerly in this case. In the
absence of strong prevailing winds, fire will tend to spread in the direction and speed
dictated by the local diurnal conditions and topographic features. Thunderstorms and
associated lightning ignite natural wildland fires in the area.
Both the Bozeman and Hyalite Creek road systems are potential evacuation corridors for
the recreating public in the area should a large fire event occur. At the same time, these
BMW-0000388
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 9
roads are the access route for incoming firefighters and equipment to fight the fire. This
is essentially a one-way in, one-way out situation in both drainages. The corridors are
narrow and winding with few places to pull off the road or turn vehicles around. Hyalite
Canyon is one of the most heavily used recreation areas on the forest. This is a safety
concern because of potential traffic jams during a fire event. The situation is
compounded when smoke impairs visibility and breathing; heat, flames and burnt trees
falling can block passage along the corridors and potentially injure firefighters and the
public.
Much of the vegetation along both sides of the Bozeman and Hyalite roads are in a high
fire hazard condition. The vegetation is such that tree density is greater and dead and
down fuel loadings are higher because natural fire frequencies have been missed. This
means there is great potential for fires to burn hotter and spread faster. Safety concerns
outlined above in regards to the evacuation corridors could begin to be mitigated with
fuel reduction treatments.
Firefighters are experiencing greater fuel loadings, increased ladder fuels from multi-
storied stands, dense canopy closures and continuity that can support active crown fires,
and the complexities that exist from interface fires. Land managers have the ability to
modify fuels, which has a direct result on fire behavior. In a national survey, nearly 80%
of all wildland firefighters identified fuel reduction as the single-most important factor
for improving their margin of safety on wildland fires (Tri-Data 1996).
Fire History
Fire, insects and disease have played a definite role in determining the current vegetative
composition and structure. Fire in the area occurred either as localized spot fires or as
large conflagrations. Based on fire history studies in adjacent areas such as the Spanish
Peaks breaks (Losensky-1993), and the Squaw Creek drainage (Losensky-1993) to the
southwest, there have apparently been no major fires in the area since the mid to late
1800’s. One of the latest documented examples of a large, stand replacement fire event
near the project area was the fire of 1881 that burned along both sides of the Gallatin
Canyon from the Big Sky area to Spanish Creek. The fire was about 40 miles long in
distance, and about 45,000 acres in size (Lee Metcalf Wilderness Fire Management
Guidebook, 1997). Another example noted by local historians, “effects of a large fire in
1909 are still visible on Mount Ellis” (Sourdough Creek Watershed Assessment, 2004).
From that time until recently, large fires have been rare partly due to increased
effectiveness of fire suppression.
Fire occurrence records from 1940 to 2004 identify 64 fires in the Bozeman and Hyalite
drainages (see project files). Twenty five fires were lighting caused (40%), and 39
human caused (60%). Only one fire reached Class C in size (10-100 acres) and was
lightning caused. Another study in the area for the Madison Range notes that
approximately 7500 acres/year should have burned historically and only 81 acres/year
(average) have burned in a period 1940 through 1994 (Jones,1995). This study and the
recent records for the analysis area highlights the fact that the Forest Service and the
other federal wildland fire agencies have become very successful at their active fire
BMW-0000389
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 10
suppression efforts, thus the term “fire exclusion”. National statistics show the fire
agencies are 98% successful at initial attack, therefore 2% of the wildfires cause the most
problems and most expenditure of funds (National Interagency Incident Management
Study, 2005, p13).
Numerous large fires have occurred on the Gallatin National Forest in recent years. The
most notable near the analysis area are Bostwick (1991, 1100 ac), Fridley (2001, 26,000
ac), Purdy Creek (2001, 5,000 ac), and Big Creek (2006, 14,000 ac). These last three
fires were in close proximity to the project area. The 2006 Derby Fire near Big Timber
was not near the project area, but may be indicative of the severity of wildfire in
extremely hot and dry conditions.
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
The Hyalite Creek and Bozeman Creek drainages have been designated as wildland urban
interface by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Gallatin County, 2008). It identifies
the project area as being within the designated protection plan area.
The area along the northern boundary of the project area where private land meets
national forest land constitutes the wildland urban interface (WUI). There are several
homes and sub-divisions in this WUI area. Many of the homes are within one half mile
from the forest boundary. Wildland Urban Interface is defined as: The line, area or zone
where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped
wildland or vegetative fuels (Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2004).
For at-risk communities that have not yet designated their WUI areas as part of a
Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2004, the HFRA has a default definition of WUI.
It is an area:
• Extending ½ mile from the boundary of an at-risk community, OR
• Extending 1½ miles from the boundary when other criteria are met such
as: sustained steep slopes that create potential fire behavior that endanger
the at-risk community; a geographic feature that aids in creating an
effective firebreak, such as a road or ridgetop, OR
• Is in Condition Class 3, OR
• Adjacent to an evacuation route. There is no distance limitation for
evacuation routes.
Bozeman’s Water Supply
Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks are the primary sources of water supply for the City of Bozeman.
The City has water intake diversions on both streams near the Forest boundary with pipelines
to the City Water Treatment Plant near the Bozeman Creek trailhead. Approximately 80% of
the City waters supply originates from the two drainages with an additional minor source in
Lyman Creek in the Bridger Mountains. Water quality in both Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks is
good and in compliance with water quality standards. The Montana DEQ water quality
standards for both drainages are very restrictive. Bozeman Creek is designated as A-Closed
BMW-0000390
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 11
and Hyalite Creek as A-1. These are non-degradation classifications with no allowable point
sources of pollution and very strict controls on turbidity and non-point sources.
The City of Bozeman water treatment plant has a treatment output capacity of 15 million
gallons/day with average use of about 4-5 millions gallons/day, winter use 2-4 gallons/day,
and peak summer use of about 12-14 million gallons/day. The treatment plant uses a direct
filtration process, followed by filtration and chlorination. Wildfire related ash deposits and
sediment in Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks due to increased erosion in wildfire areas could be a
major potential source of contamination to Bozeman’s water supply. A large wildfire in
Hyalite and Bozeman watersheds could result in short to long term loss of water supply from a
few days to several weeks. The most at risk situation would be heavy rainfall within 2 years of
a major wildfire. In the event of temporary closure of the treatment plant, water could be
rationed from the storage tank on the east side of Bozeman with about a 3 day drinking supply
if conservatively used (City of Bozeman, Water Facility Plan 2006). In a prolonged shutdown
Bozeman residents may need to use bottled water until the treatment plant resumes operation.
The City contracted with Allied Engineering for the facility plan which recommended
renovations to the treatment system. The upgraded treatment plant would cost several million
dollars and would not be completed for 6-8 years (City of Bozeman, 2006. Water Facility
Plan).
Management Direction for Restoration and Fuels Reduction
The Forest Service has current direction from the Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987),
the National Fire Plan (2000), the Cohesive Strategy (“Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems”, 2000), the Healthy Forests Initiative (2002), and
Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2004) to focus attention and effort on protecting
communities including municipal watersheds.
The Gallatin National Forest Plan, 1987 has the following goals, objectives and
standards pertaining to fire management.
Goals: Use prescribed fire to accomplish vegetative management objectives. Provide a
fire protection and use program which is responsive to land and resource management
goals and objectives.
Objective: Prescribed fire will be used as a tool to carry out vegetative management
activities.
Standards: Treatment of natural fuel accumulations to support hazard reduction and
management area goals will be continued. Prescribed fire (planned or unplanned
ignitions) may be utilized to support management area goals.
2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy:
o Protection of human life is the first priority in wildland fire management.
BMW-0000391
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 12
o Fire Exclusion efforts, combined with other land-use practices, have in many places
dramatically altered fire regimes so that today’s fires tend to be larger and more
severe.
o Agencies must create an organizational climate that supports employees who
implement a properly planned program to reintroduce wildland fires.
o Where wildland fire cannot be safely reintroduced because of hazardous fuel build-
ups, some form of pretreatment must be considered, particularly in Wildland Urban
Interface areas.
Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment – A
Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000 ( a.k.a.,The National
Fire Plan). Key Point #3: Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Invest in projects to reduce fire
risk. Operating Principle #4: Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Assign highest priority for
hazardous fuel reduction to communities at risk and municipal watersheds where
conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires.
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-adapted Ecosystems: a Cohesive
Strategy to Reduce Over-Accumulated Vegetation (a.k.a., The Cohesive Strategy). Focuses on priorities of the National Fire Plan: wildland-urban interface, municipal
watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat and maintenance of Condition
Class I areas.
The Healthy Forest Initiative (2004) and Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2004)
continue to prioritize wildland urban interface lands. Although, the project design does
not utilize streamlined processes developed through those policies, the alternatives are
responsive to those priorities.
The Forest Service only has jurisdiction for potential fuel reduction treatments on public
lands in the WUI areas. The Forest Service does have responsibility to collaborate and
cooperate with private landowners in the WUI. Through education and encouragement
of private landowners to treat fuels on their property and make their homes fire safe, we
can work towards a common goal.
The current fuel situation in the WUI, the terrain, prevailing winds, and long term
drought are conditions that pose a concern for a potential wildfire to spread either from
the Forest to private lands or from private lands onto the Forest. The WUI for this
analysis area is along the northern boundary where private land meets National Forest
Land in both Hyalite Creek and Bozeman Creek; and along the northwest boundary
adjacent to the ridge between Hyalite Creek and Cottonwood Creek. The common goal
would be to reduce fuels in the WUI. This will begin to reduce conditions for initiation
and spread of crown fire, which will lessen the fire behavior potential of a fire spreading
from or to National Forest System (NFS) lands and into the municipal watershed.
The Northern Region’s Restoration and Protection Strategy (2005) starts with the
National Forest Service Strategic goals and uses integrated objectives to prioritize and
accomplish Regional ecosystem restoration and protection of social values at risk. The
BMW-0000392
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 13
Strategy is intended to be dynamic and will be continually amended as needed to address
new information, changed conditions, or changes in National priorities.
This strategy seeks to develop a common vision for addressing resource conditions across
geographic areas independent of National Forest administrative boundaries. It promotes
integration among programs and budgets and is used for setting priorities for investments
for restoration and protection projects.
The focus of the Northern Region Restoration and Protection Strategy is to:
• Restore and maintain high value watersheds in a properly functioning condition.
• Restore and maintain wildlife habitats, including restoring more resilient
vegetation conditions where appropriate, to meet ecological and social goals.
• Protect people, structures and community infra-structure (roads, bridges, and
power corridors,) in and associated with the wildland-urban interface (WUI).
Some of the specific resources and values that are identified by this strategy and which
are influenced by natural processes and cultural treatments include community infra-
structure, watersheds and fish habitat, and municipal watersheds as sources for
community water supply.
Purpose and Need for Action
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to help reduce the risk of severe and extensive wildfire on
the National Forest lands within the municipal watershed to help maintain a high-quality,
long term, water supply for Bozeman area residents through cooperative efforts with the
City of Bozeman. Severe wildfire is characterized as an uncontrollable crown fire that
burns entire stands of timber and threatens structures, wildlife habitat, and soil and water
resources. Extent of wildfire refers to spread and size of the fire. Objectives for this
project include the following:
1. Begin reducing the potential severity and extent of future wildland fires in the
Bozeman Municipal Watershed by restoring and changing vegetative and fuel
conditions in order to reduce the risk of excess sediment and ash reaching the
municipal water treatment plant because of a wildfire.
Need: Wildfire related ash deposits and sediment in Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks due
to increased erosion in wildfire areas would be a major potential source of
contamination to Bozeman’s water supply. A wildfire of large and severe extent in
Hyalite and Bozeman watersheds could result in short to long term loss of water supply
from a few days to several weeks. The most at risk situation would be heavy rainfall
within 2 years following a major wildfire. In the event of temporary closure of the
treatment plant, water could be rationed from the storage tank on the east side of
Bozeman with about a 3 day drinking supply if conservatively used. In a prolonged
BMW-0000393
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 14
shutdown Bozeman residents may need to use bottled water until the treatment plant
resumes operation.
2. Treat vegetation and fuel conditions along road corridors that will provide for
firefighter and public safety by beginning to modify potential fire behavior.
Need: Both the Bozeman and Hyalite Creek road systems are potential
evacuation corridors for the recreating public in the area should a large fire event
occur. At the same time, these roads are the access route for incoming firefighters
and equipment to fight the fire. This is essentially a one-way in, one-way out
situation in both drainages. The corridors are narrow and winding with few
places to pull off the road or turn vehicles around. Up to 2000 vehicles per day
may be entering Hyalite Canyon on a busy summer weekend day with the
potential for traffic during a fire. The need is to provide more time for safe
evacuation of the public at the same time that firefighters are entering the area.
3. Reduce vegetation and fuel conditions in the wildland/urban interface (WUI) to
reduce potential fire spread and intensity between National Forest System lands
and adjacent private lands.
Need: The current fuel situation in the WUI, the terrain, prevailing winds and
long term drought are conditions that pose a concern for a potential wildfire to
spread either from the National Forest to private lands or from private lands onto
the National Forest. It would be unacceptable to allow a fire spreading from the
National Forest to threaten private property and conversely, a fire spreading from
private land onto the National Forest. The WUI for this analysis area is along the
northern boundary where private land meets National Forest Land in both Hyalite
Creek and Bozeman Creek; and along the northwest boundary adjacent to the
ridge between Hyalite Creek and Cottonwood Creek. The common goal would be
to reduce fuels in the WUI, which will reduce conditions for initiation and spread
of crown fire, which will lessen the fire behavior potential of a fire spreading
from or to National Forest lands.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action
The proposed action was presented to the public during scoping process (see Public
Involvement section in this chapter). It was designed to achieve the purpose and need for
action. Other alternatives to the Proposed Action are detailed in Chapter 2 and are
designed as alternative ways to meet the purpose and need.
The actions proposed include:
BMW-0000394
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 15
* Partial harvesting and thinning is proposed for about 2,200 acres of mature timber
stands. Ground based, skyline, and helicopter harvest systems would be used to
implement this harvest and thinning.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of younger, small diameter trees would occur on about
1,150 acres. Hand piling would be used in some places.
* Prescribed burning would occur in the thinned stands after harvest or cutting.
* Approximately 850 acres of prescribed burning in less dense stands is proposed.
Project Area
The project area is at T 3S., R 5 and 6E and encompasses approximately the lower one
third of the Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek drainages beginning just to the north of
the Moser Creek Road and the Langohr Road in the Hyalite drainage. The northern part
of Hyalite is drained by Hodgman Creek and Leverich Creek. The project area on the
eastern side includes a portion of the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area. The
area along the northern boundary of the project area where private land abuts National
Forest land constitutes the wildland urban interface (WUI) with several homes and sub-
divisions in this WUI area. Many of the homes are within one half mile from the forest
boundary.
The City of Bozeman water treatment plant is located just outside the National Forest
boundary on Bozeman Creek. Two water diversion dams that channel water to the
treatment plant, one each on Bozeman and Hyalite Creek, are approximately one mile
inside the Forest boundary adjacent to the paved Hyalite Road and the closed Bozeman
Creek Road.
Detail of Treatments Being Proposed
To achieve a meaningful reduction in fire severity and extent, the proposed action would
treat extensive areas of forested land within these two drainages to reduce forest density,
increase crown base height and reduce existing high levels of down woody debris. The
proposed treatments would be implemented over an eight to ten-year period and
concentrated within the lower reaches of both drainages. In order to maintain a reduced
level of fire severity and probability, future maintenance treatments would likely be
necessary as the forest grows and changes.
Changes since the DEIS
Regardless of the silvicultural treatment or the harvest method, the follow up fuels
treatment on all slopes <35% could be done with mechanized equipment such as an
excavator. The sentence “Machine piling and burning would be done on slopes <35%
whether helicopter, cable or ground based harvest” was added to each of the treatment
descriptions.
BMW-0000395
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 16
Thinning and partial harvest in mature timber stands
Treatments proposed include harvesting in mature stands of timber, cutting smaller
diameter trees and leaving larger ones to reduce the fuel loading and break up the vertical
and horizontal composition of the fuels. Fuel treatment could be whole tree yarding, pile
burning and jackpot or understory burning, or biomass removal. Machine piling and
burning would be done on slopes <35% whether helicopter, cable, or ground based
harvest. Overall about 30% to50% of the trees in a stand would be removed. There
would be an approximate 100 foot buffer from Hyalite or Bozeman Creek with
handpiling only for the fuel treatment. The actual buffer would be based on distance and
topography.
Thinning in small diameter stands
Mechanical or hand cutting and piling smaller, younger trees would reduce the density of
small diameter stands. These are areas with past harvest in the upper slopes and divide
between Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek. There may be commercial products in some
of the stands. Many fuel treatment options are available depending on products and
market. Mechanical processing may be most efficient as far as economics and
production. Cutting with chainsaws, hand pile and burning may be the most costly and
labor intensive. Machine piling and burning would be done on slopes <35% whether
helicopter, cable, or ground based harvest. Whole tree yarding, selling post and poles,
selling chips for pulp or hog fuel are some options. Other machines are available that can
chop, crush and shred otherwise un-merchantable material to reduce fuels. Follow-up
burning is desirable. Limit the treatment to areas that can be reached from the existing
roads.
Prescribed burning in thinned stands
Fuel treatment could include whole tree yarding to remove most of the fuels left after
harvest. Where needed these activity and natural fuels would be understory burned if
helicopter yarded or cable yarded, or machine piled and burned if using ground based
system. Machine piling and burning would be done on slopes <35% whether helicopter,
cable, or ground based harvest. Machine piles could be done by several methods during
the harvest or after, such as feller-buncher, grapple piling or excavator piling. Other fuel
treatment options could be incorporated such as cut and trample with the feller-buncher,
or cut-to-length forwarders that also trample slash. It would still be necessary to follow
up with prescribed burning.
Prescribed burning
Prescribed burning in less dense stands of trees to reduce ground cover and smaller trees
in order to keep the stands in an open condition with less chance of rapid fire spread.
Spring or fall burning could be used.
Combined Effect of Treatments
BMW-0000396
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 17
The combined treatments change the landscape’s fuel loading and distribution of fuels to
reduce the potential for large scale and severe wildfires. The goal of treatments, either a
combination of mechanical and prescribed fire or prescribed fire alone, is to convert or
restore sites of high or moderate fire hazard to moderate or low; and keep low fire hazard
areas from becoming moderate or high. These areas would become more fire resilient and
display fire behavior such as lower intensity more characteristic of the site.
Relationship To The Gallatin Forest Plan Gallatin Forest Plan
The Gallatin Forest Plan (1987) embodies the provisions of the National Forest
Management Act, its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The
Forest Plan sets forth in detail the direction for managing the land and resources of
the Gallatin National Forest. The Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project FEIS tiers
to the Forest Plan FEIS, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. Chapter 3-5 includes a
summary by resource of the standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan
that are pertinent to this action. The proposed action is also supported by the
following Forest Plan direction:
Forest Plan Goals
• Use prescribed fire to accomplish vegetative management objectives. (p. II-2)
• Provide a fire protection and use program, which is responsive to land and
resource management goals and objectives. (p. II-2)
Forest Plan Objectives
• Prescribed fire will be used as a tool to carry out vegetative management
activities. (p. II-6)
Forest Plan Standards
• General Standards: Forest lands and other vegetative communities such as
grassland, aspen, willow, sagebrush and whitebark pine will be managed by
prescribed fire and other methods to produce and maintain the desired
vegetative condition. (p. II-19)
• Fire Standards: Treatment of natural fuel accumulations to support hazard
reduction and management area goals will be continued. (p. II-28)
The Forest Plan uses management areas to guide management of the National Forest
lands within the Gallatin National Forest. Each management area (MA) provides for
BMW-0000397
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 18
a unique combination of activities, practices, and uses. The Bozeman Municipal
Watershed project area includes six management areas. The majority of the timber
harvest and thinning activities involved with this project would occur in MA5, MA8,
MA12, and MA17 with some harvest areas in MA7, and MA9. The majority of
prescribed burning would occur in MA12. All fuel reduction activities associated
with the proposed action comply with Forest Plan guidelines for the applicable MAs.
The Forest Plan (Chapter III) contains a detailed description of each management area
as it relates to significant issues. Following is a brief description of the applicable
management area direction for each of the MAs affected with the proposed action:
Management Area 5 (MA 5) These areas include travel corridors that receive
heavy recreational use. They are classified as suitable for timber production and
should be managed to provide a diverse vegetative pattern. Acceptable harvest
methods include even-aged and uneven-aged harvest systems including
commercial and pre-commercial thinning if they enhance recreational values.
Design, construct, reconstruct, and maintain roads consistent with management
area goals and traffic demands. Prescribed burning may be used to meet
management goals. Emphasize fire prevention contact.
Management Area 7 (MA 7) This management area consists of riparian zones
across the forest. It will be managed to protect the soil, water, vegetation, fish
and wildlife dependent on it. These areas are classified as suitable for timber
production if adjacent areas contain suitable timber. Design timber harvest to
meet the needs of riparian dependent species. Commercial or pre-commercial
thinning may be used. Prescribed fire may be used to meet management goals.
Note: These areas often times are too narrow to be displayed on forest MA maps
due to the small scale of these maps.
Management Area 8 (MA 8) These areas consist of lands that are suitable for
regulated timber harvest. They provide for productive timber stands and optimize
timber growing potential for sustained timber production. Portions of these areas
have been roaded and many of these roads have been closed to protect other
resources. Prescribed fire may be used to meet the management area goals
Management Area 9 (MA 9) These areas consist of suitable timber lands which
have high dispersed recreation value and are visually sensitive. The recreation
opportunity spectrum class is roaded natural appearing. The roads in these areas
are managed for dispersed recreation and the trail system is maintained to enhance
dispersed use. Prescribed fire may be used to meet the management area goals.
Management Area 12 (MA 12) MA 12 provides goals and objectives to
maintain and improve the vegetative condition to provide habitat for a diversity of
wildlife species and a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities. Harvest of
BMW-0000398
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 19
post, pole, and other wood products can take place adjacent to existing roads.
Prescribed burning can also be used on lands within this MA to meet management
area goals.
Management Area 17 (MA 17)- These areas are grasslands or nonproductive
forest lands on slopes less than 40 percent that are suitable for livestock grazing
and contain important big game habitat and heavily used portions of range
allotments. Allow for harvest of post and poles and other wood products in areas
adjacent to existing roads. Prescribed fire may be used to meet management area
goals.
Lands Suitable for Timber Production
Management Areas 5, 7, 8, and 9, above are MAs that have been designated in the
Gallatin Forest Plan as suitable for timber production. Management Areas 12 and 17 are
designated as not suitable for timber production. Timber harvest for the purpose of
thinning stands to reduce the severity and extent of potential wildfire occurs in all these
MAs in the municipalwatershed. The following provides the rationale for harvest on
MAs designated as not suitable for timber production.
The National Forest System Land Management Planning; Final Rule at 36 CFR Part
219.12 (a) (4) states:
“(4) Other lands where trees may be harvested for multiple use values other than timber
production. Designation of lands as not suitable for timber production does not preclude
the harvest of trees on those lands for salvage, sanitation, or other multiple resource
purposes. Except for lands described at paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E)of this section, timber
harvest harvest may be used as a tool to assist in achieving or maintaining applicable
desired conditions or objectives.”
The reasons for harvest in MAs 12 and 17 fit the reasons in this paragraph.
BMW-0000399
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 20
Decision to be Made
This Final EIS is not a decision document, it does not identify the alternative to be
selected by the Deciding Official. This document discloses the environmental effects of
implementing the proposed action and the alternatives to that action. The Gallatin Forest
Supervisor, Mary Erickson, is the Deciding Official. Based on the analysis documented
in this FEIS and comments received on the DEIS, she will make a decision on the project.
Her decision and rationale for that decision will be documented in the Record of
Decision.
The decisions to be made are:
• The kinds of fuel treatments that would best help to reduce the severity
and extent of potential wildfire in the lower reaches of the municipal
watershed. This includes harvest and post-harvest treatment of fuels.
• The amount and location of the treatments to be most effective in reducing
the severity and extent of potential wildfire.
• Location of temporary road construction and standards for rehabilitation
of roads and skid trails.
• The short term risk and tradeoff to resources such as water quality and
visuals that these activities would cause weighed against the long term risk
of severe wildfire.
• Whether a project specific amendment for visual quality standards for
certain units of land is appropriate.
The Forest Service has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Bozeman to “establish a framework for cooperation between the parties to maintain (in
the long term) a high-quality, predictable water supply for Bozeman through cooperative
efforts in implementing sustainable land management practices”.
Decisions made for National Forest System lands are separate from those made by the
City. Land management decisions on Federal lands within the watershed are made solely
by the Forest Service. Decisions on City lands within the watershed and decisions about
City water treatment and storage facilities remain outside the scope of any Forest Service
decision although the cumulative impacts of any treatments on City lands in Bozeman
Creek are analyzed in Chapter 3 and would be considered in the decision.
BMW-0000400
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 21
Public Involvement
Prior to the DEIS
The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project was published
in the Federal Register on October 18, 2005. The NOI asked for public comment on the
proposal. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency asked that
initial comments on the project be submitted by November 11, 2005.
A public scoping document was sent to agencies and interested individuals on September
19, 2005. The scoping document described the project area, laid out the purpose and
need for the project, and identified some preliminary issues associated with the project.
The list of individuals, agencies, and interest groups who were sent the scoping document
are part of the project record.
Because the two drainages involved, Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek, encompass the
City of Bozeman Municipal Watershed, The Forest Service worked closely with the City
of Bozeman administration on the purpose and need. The City and the Forest Service
signed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning our mutual goals and objectives.
This MOU is a part of the public record.
The Bozeman Watershed Council, a local interest group concerned about the
management of the watershed, had been meeting periodically with the Forest Service.
They produced an assessment of Bozeman Creek in 2004 outlining the management
needs for the drainage (Sourdough Creek Watershed Assessment. 2004. Bozeman
Watershed Council, Bozeman, Montana).
Other interest groups, concerned citizens, and the local rural fire districts had
collaborative discussions with the Forest Service on the specific needs of the watershed
prior to the initiation of the project.
The following is a summary of the public participation that has occurred since the
announcement of the project:
1. During the public comment period we received detailed letters from 18
individuals and 11 interest groups. These are part of the project record. The
comments that were received in these letters were developed into the issues that
are described below.
2. On May 3, 2006 we had a meeting with several individuals and groups for a
briefing on the issues that had been raised during scoping and afterward.
3. We had numerous meetings with the City of Bozeman staff members to
coordinate our efforts.
4. On June 12, 2006 we briefed the Bozeman City Commission on the progress of
the project.
BMW-0000401
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 22
5. On August 3, 2006 we sent a letter to all those on our mailing list briefing them
on progress.
6. On August 8, 2006 there was a field trip to the project area for congressional
staffers and others.
7. On September 13, 2006 an open house was held to bring the public up to date on
the alternatives that were being developed for the DEIS.
8. During the month of May, 2007, the District Ranger sent invitations and issued a
press release that he was having four “morning coffee” meetings for people to
come, visit, and get an update on the project. These were held at the Eagle Mount
conference room.
9. On August 30, 2007 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bozeman
Municipal Watershed fuels reduction project was released for public review and
comment. A 45 day comment period was provided. See Appendix C for a
summary of the public comments and the Forest Service response to the
comments.
Following the release of the DEIS
1. The Forest Service and the City of Bozeman held an open house on September
25, 2007 for a public review of the project and an opportunity for people to get
their questions about the project answered. Two public tours of the project area
were conducted in October and reviews of the project were given to several
individuals.
2. The Forest Service received seven substantive letters commenting on the DEIS
from agencies and organizations. It received 36 form letters from other
individuals plus numerous pre-printed cards and emails.
Issues
Using the comments from the public and other agencies the interdisciplinary team
developed a list of issues to address in the environmental document. The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7,
“…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or
which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”. The Forest
Service identified the following issues:
1. Fire and Fuels – The issue is the effectiveness of reducing fuels in forested
vegetation as a way to reduce fire severity in case of a wildfire.
2. Water Quality - The issue is the long term tradeoff of risking potentially severe
wildfire and associated high sediment increase risk compared to the activities of
BMW-0000402
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 23
this proposal and possible short term increases in sediment to the City of
Bozeman water treatment plant.
3. Fisheries – what are the fish species that could be affected by wildfire and how
would they and their habitat be affected by the activities necessary to reduce the
potential for severe wildfire.
4. Scenery – how will the visual quality standards of the Forest Plan be met with this
proposal and what tradeoffs might need to be made for long term fire protection.
5. Inventoried Roadless Land – the issue with inventoried roadless lands is whether
the activities associated with the project will diminish their wilderness character
in any way.
6. Lynx - Fuel reduction treatments in lynx habitat can reduce security cover,
remove coarse woody debris, which is a key component of lynx denning habitat,
and alter the preferred habitat of their primary prey species, snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus).
7. Northern Goshawk - Commercial thinning and prescribed burning can alter
goshawk nesting, post fledging and foraging habitat. Some habitat modifications
resulting from such actions could have detrimental effects.
8. Forested Vegetation – what is the condition of the fire-adapted forest vegetation
in these watersheds that makes it vulnerable to severe wildfire and what are the
most appropriate actions to take that can help restore it to more natural conditions.
9. Recreation - Proposed fuel treatments in the Bozeman Creek and Hyalite
drainages may affect recreation use during periods of operations.
10. Economics – What is the most economically efficient and effective ways to meet
the purpose and need of the project.
11. Air Quality – how will the air quality be affected by the prescribed burning
activities of the proposal and its alternatives.
12. Weeds - Proposed activities such as prescribed burning and removal or thinning
of the forest canopy, activities that displace ground cover such as road
construction, yarding of logs, and log landing construction and their use may
cause new noxious weed populations to become established and existing
populations to expand.
13. Soils – How will the Regional soils guidelines be met considering the proposed
ground disturbing activities of the project.
14-21. Other Wildlife - what effects will this project have on wildlife species such as
the black-backed woodpecker, grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, migratory
birds, wolverine, marten, elk and other big game.
BMW-0000403
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 1 - 24
BMW-0000404
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 1
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Introduction
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Bozeman
Municipal Watershed Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative
considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply
defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice
among options by the decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the
alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., helicopter logging versus the
use of skid trails) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social
and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of erosion caused
by helicopter versus skidding).
Alternatives Considered in Detail
Changes Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS
The Forest Service developed five alternatives for the DEIS, including the No Action and
Proposed Action Alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public and agency
specialists. Alternative 5 was identified as the DEIS Preferred Alternative. Another
alternative was developed for the FEIS and is identified as Alternative 6, the FEIS
Preferred Alternative. Alternative 4 was changed in the FEIS to include fewer acres of
prescribed burning as further analysis indicated that the larger acreage could not be
logistically and safely burned.
Alternative 1
No Action
Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide
management of the project area. No fuel reduction activities would be implemented.
Alternative 2
The Proposed Action
This alternative is a more detailed version of the proposed action presented to the public
during scoping. An interdisciplinary team with specialties in hydrology, fisheries,
wildlife, silviculture, ecology and wildland fuels convened with data layers for soils,
vegetation, fuels and fire risk. The data layers were used in concert with watershed, fire
BMW-0000405
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 2
behavior and landscape dynamic models to identify the infrastructure, land base and
environmental conditions of most concern. The proposed action alternative reflects the
priority treatment areas and one treatment scenario that would address the purpose and
need for actions. A more detailed description of the treatment prescription and
implementation methods is in Appendix A.
The actions proposed in this alternative include:
* Approximately 850 acres of burning in less dense stands is proposed.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of young trees would occur on 1,150 acres. Mechanical
thinning or hand methods would be used to implement this thinning.
* Partial harvesting is proposed for about 2,200 acres. Ground based (23%), skyline
(32%), and helicopter (45%) harvest systems would be used to implement this thinning.
* Features common to Action Alternatives, mitigation and activities associated with the
primary treatments is in this Chapter beginning on page 12.
* This Alternative would require a project-specific Forest plan amendment to exempt the
proposed fuel reduction treatment from meeting the Forest Plan visual quality objective
(VQO) on the Gallatin Face (FP, pg. II-16) in units 12, 13, 22.
The location of proposed treatment units can be found on the Figure 2-1, Alternative 2
Map. Approximately 7.2 miles of temporary harvest road would need to be constructed
and 3 miles of old road reopened. Approximately 468 acres of the partial harvesting
would occur in the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area. Harvest in the Inventoried
Roadless Area would be accomplished by helicopter and no roads would be built. The
approximate duration of the proposed activities would be a 5-12 year timeframe.
Alternative 3
This alternative was designed to meet the purpose and need for action and achieve the
desired future condition more aggressively than Alternative 2. Given the extent of and
current condition of the municipal watershed, an issue was raised by agency specialists
that the proposed action was not extensive enough to be effective toward meeting the
purpose and need for action. Treating additional acres would more effectively reduce the
potential extent of future crown fires resulting in less severe fires and fire behavior.
The mitigation or design features unique to this alternative includes the addition of
approximately 2,300 treatment acres and the associated roading. There is additional
burning and thinning of large trees. The logging method for the units proposed for
thinning large trees is approximately 19% ground based, 31% skyline harvest and 44%
helicopter harvest. A more detailed description of the treatment prescription and
implementation methods is in Appendix A.
The actions proposed in this alternative include:
* Approximately 1100 acres of burning in less dense stands is proposed.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of young trees would occur on 1,150 acres.
* Partial harvesting is proposed for about 3,900 acres. Ground based, skyline and
helicopter harvest systems would be used to implement this thinning.
BMW-0000406
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 3
* Features common to All Action Alternatives, mitigation and activities associated with
the primary treatments is in this Chapter beginning on page 12.
* This Alternative would require a project-specific Forest plan amendment to exempt the
proposed fuel reduction treatment from meeting the Forest Plan visual quality objective
(VQO) on the Gallatin Face (FP, pg. II-16) in proposed units 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 27,
28, 29, 30.
* The alternative would not meet the Forest Plan standard for fisheries in Leverich Creek
and would require a plan amendment.
The logging method for the units proposed for thinning large trees is approximately 19%
ground based, 31% skyline harvest , 46% helicopter harvest, and 4% helicopter/cable.
For better viewing of the Maps go to
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=projects/bozeman_watershed
BMW-0000407
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 4
Figure 2.1: Alternative 2 Map.
BMW-0000408
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 5
Alternative 3 (Continued)
For better viewing of the Map go to
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=projects/bozeman_watershed
The location of treatment areas can be found on the Figure 2-2: Alternative 3 Map.
Approximately 13.5 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed and 5.4 miles
of old road re-opened. Six hundred and seventy five acres of the partial harvesting would
occur in the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area. Harvest in the Inventoried
Roadless Area would be accomplished by helicopter and no roads would be built. The
approximate duration of the proposed activities would be a 5-12 year timeframe.
BMW-0000409
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 6
Figure 2-2. Alternative 3 Map.
BMW-0000410
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 7
Alternative 4
The No Logging/Prescribed Burning Alternative
The mitigation or design feature unique to this alternative is that the design of treatments
would be limited to prescribed burning, small tree removal and no additional roads. This
alternative combines an effort to meet the purpose and need for action without thinning
large trees using logging methods. This alternative is also the agency response to the
request during scoping to consider an alternative limited only to prescribed burning and
to consider an alternative with no additional roads. A more detailed description of the
treatment prescription and implementation methods is in Appendix A.
The actions proposed in this alternative include:
* Approximately 2,046 acres of burning in less dense stands is proposed. This was
reduced from the 3,982 acres of Alternative 4 in the DEIS.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of young trees would occur on about 1,250 acres.
* Features common to All Action Alternatives that are applicable to burning and pre-
commercial or small tree thinning treatments, mitigation and activities associated with
the primary treatments are listed in this Chapter beginning on page 12.
* Treatments proposed under this Alternative are consistent with the Forest Plan Visual
Quality Objective standard.
The Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) would have prescribed burning but
there would be no harvest in the IRA. The approximate duration of the proposed
activities would be a 5-12 year timeframe. The location of treatment areas can be found
on the Figure 2-3: Alternative 4 Map.
Change Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS
Upon further analysis, the fire management specialists determined that about 2,000 acres
proposed for prescribed burning in this alternative would not be feasible to burn.
However, the effects analysis for several resource areas reflects the original 3,982 acres.
The reason these acres would not be feasible includes some combination of eight factors
described in more detail in the Fuels Report (Brickell 2007). An example of the factors
include consideration of whether the risk and consequences of escape are acceptable
when existing fuel load is high and pretreatment is limited to small tree removal.
Another example is whether burning without pretreatment (harvest) to reduce potential
fire intensity may cause greater mortality and stress to trees leading to greater fuel
loading in the area. (Brickell, 2007) More discussion of this information is in the
Fire/Fuels Report (Brickell 2007).
BMW-0000411
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 8
Figure 2-3: Alternative 4 Map.
BMW-0000412
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 9
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 is designed to improve the effectiveness of the project toward meeting the
purpose and need for action while mitigating unacceptable impacts to scenery, watershed,
and westslope cut throat trout. Design of this alternative also incorporates treatment
areas in and near the wildland urban interface that were unintentionally left out of other
alternatives or after additional analysis areas were determined to be strategically
important to treat with respect to fire spread. Additionally this alternative makes
revisions in treatment prescription and/or method where more accurate information
enabled specialists to make more accurate treatment recommendations.
The actions proposed in this alternative include:
* Approximately 950 acres of burning in less dense stands is proposed.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of young trees would occur on 1,200 acres.
* Partial harvesting is proposed for about 3,700 acres. Ground based (21%), skyline
(12%) and helicopter harvest (67%) systems would be used to implement this thinning.
* Features common to All Action Alternatives, mitigation and activities associated with
primary treatments are listed in this Chapter beginning on page 12.
* In this Alternative, the proposed treatments are consistent with the Visual Quality
Objectives standard. However, in order to improve the existing condition from past
activity, a project-specific Forest plan amendment would be required to change the
Forest Plan visual quality objective (VQO) on the Gallatin Face (FP, pg. II-16) from
Partial Retention to Rehabilitation specifically for the following two areas: the east
side of Unit 13 where helicopter thinning would provide visual mitigation to an existing
clearcut cable unit by visually breaking up the straight sides and upper road edge; and
to the northwest edge of Unit 25 where tractor thinning would reduce the sharp edges
and visual contrast of the leave strip between two existing clearcuts. A more detailed
description of the treatment prescription and implementation methods is in Appendix
A.
The location of treatment areas as modified can be found on the Figure 2-4: Alternative 5
Map.
The logging method for the units proposed for thinning large trees is approximately 21%
ground based, 12% skyline harvest and 67% helicopter harvest.
Approximately 6.9 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed and 1.7 miles
of old road re-opened. Approximately six hundred acres of the partial harvesting would
occur in the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area. Harvest in the Inventoried
Roadless Area would be accomplished by helicopter and no roads would be built. The
approximate duration of the proposed activities would be a 5-12 year timeframe.
BMW-0000413
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 10
Figure 2-4: Alternative 5 Map.
BMW-0000414
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 11
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 was developed following the release of the DEIS and after the
interdisciplinary team had an opportunity to examine new information on the costs of
helicopter logging and also to review public comment on the alternatives. The purpose
and need of reducing the risk of large scale, severe wildfire was still foremost, but the
cost of the project had to be lowered and the primary way of doing that was to reduce the
number of acres of helicopter logging. This was accompanied by an increase in
prescribed burning, mostly inside the inventoried roadless area where helicopter thinning
was reduced. Some public comment favored more prescribed burning and less
mechanical thinning. Some comment also requested less thinning in the roadless area.
The actions proposed in this alternative include:
* Approximately 1575 acres of burning in less dense stands is proposed.
* Mechanical cutting and piling of young trees would occur on 1,100 acres.
* Partial harvesting is proposed for about 2060 acres. Ground based (37%), skyline
(24%) and helicopter harvest (39%) systems would be used to implement this thinning.
* Features common to All Action Alternatives, mitigation and activities associated with
primary treatments are listed in this Chapter beginning on page 12.
* In this Alternative, the proposed treatments in four units are not consistent with the
Visual Quality Objectives standard. These units are 16C, 22I, 38, and 36 D. These
units will not meet the VQO standard of partial retention because the logging system is
cable logging and the cable skid lines will be seen from different locations in the valley.
Therefore, a site specific Forest Plan amendment would be needed to implement
Alternative 6.
Approximately 7.1 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed and 3.1 miles
of old road re-opened. Approximately 200 acres of the partial harvesting would occur in
the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area. Harvest in the Inventoried Roadless Area
would be accomplished by helicopter and no roads would be built. The approximate
duration of the proposed activities would be a 5-12 year timeframe.
BMW-0000415
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 12
Figure 2-5: Alternative 6 Map.
BMW-0000416
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 13
Inventoried Roadless Area
A portion of the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) contains treatment
areas in all action alternatives. Alternative 6 proposes to helicopter thin approximately
200 acres in the IRA and prescribed burn 1329 acres. The following map shows the IRA
and the location of the treatment areas.
BMW-0000417
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 14
Figure 2-6. Roadless Map.
BMW-0000418
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 15
Features Common to all Action Alternatives
The following description applies to all action alternatives. However, each alternative is unique in extent and/or emphasis on specific method.
The vegetative management activities identified for the alternatives are 1) burning in less
dense stands of trees to reduce ground cover and smaller trees in order to keep the stands
in an open condition with less chance of rapid fire spread; 2) mechanically or hand
cutting, thinning, and piling smaller, younger trees to reduce the density of these kinds of
stands; and 3) partially harvesting mature stands of trees, cutting smaller diameter trees,
and leaving larger ones to reduce fuel loadings and break up the composition of vertical
and horizontal fuels. Appendix A has a more detailed description of these treatments.
Types of activities associated with the primary treatments may include treatment of
activity and natural fuels such as slashing, lop and scatter, handpiling, machine piling,
whole tree yarding, yarding unmerchantable material, pile burning, jack pot pile burning,
underburning, prescribed burning, erosion control actions, soil restoration activities, road
construction, maintenance and closure, revegetation and weed control. This list is not an
exhaustive list but is intended to share the range of activities associated with thinning and
burning.
Changes between Draft EIS and Final EIS
The mitigation measure for units subject to re-entry standards in MA 11 was dropped.
Management Area designations for the Hyalite face (Hodgeman and Leverich Canyons)
were changed in 1990 by Forest Plan Amendment No. 3, to MA 5. Therefore, there is no
MA 11 in the BMW project area, and thus, no need for re-entry timing restrictions.
The mitigation measure to retain all needle-free snags (>= 10” dbh and >= 18’ tall) was
dropped. In the time since this measure was written, there has been significant tree
mortality due to insect infestations in the project area. Retaining all snags that meet the
minimum size categories would defeat the purpose and need to reasonably reduce fuels
within the municipal watershed. Snag retention measures for the project are specified
below in Features Common to All Action Alternatives.
The following design features would be applied during implementation of the action
alternatives.
Air Quality (Story 2007) 1. Within the minimum ambient distances the public will be warned about high smoke
concentrations and advised not to travel outside of a vehicle or residence during the
time of burning. Pile burn units would only be burned one unit at a time to avoid
BMW-0000419
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 16
cumulative smoke effects between units. Smoke from the unit should be minimal
when the next unit is burned.
2. The prescribed burns, underburns, and pile burns would be coordinated with the
Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group (http://www.smoke.org).
Amphibian Species (Roberts 2007)
1. Adhere to the Wetland Executive Order 11990.
2. Retain a no-burn buffer of at least 50 feet adjacent to Bozeman Creek, Hyalite
Creek or other perennial named and unnamed streams.
3. Ignite prescribed burns in a manner that would prevent head fires within riparian
areas adjacent to ephemeral or intermittent draws. Ignition would not occur
within these riparian areas, but fire would be allowed to back down hill and creep
around.
Aquatic (Roberts 2007)
Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Stewardship Opportunities
The following design features and mitigation measures are primarily related to sediment
delivery. The following Stewardship opportunites if implemented would also improve
sediment levels above and beyond what is already projected for Leverich Creek.
Stewardship Opportunites
1. Place 6 inch minus gravel mixture along eroding segments of the Leverich
Canyon Road from the lower culvert to the top of the steep pitch just above the upper
culvert; and associated drainage ditches;
2. Improve effectiveness of cross drainage structures along the Leverich Canyon
Road from the lower culvert to the top of the steep pitch just above the upper culvert
(Alternatives 5 and 6);
3. Replace the two failing small diameter culverts along the Leverich Canyon Road
just below the upper culvert; and,
4. Surface the entire Leverich Canyon Road from the lower culvert to the top of the
steep pitch just above the upper culvert.
Design Features and Mitigation Measures
1. A slash filter windrow would be installed below temporary road B-50, within the
Leverich drainage, as needed. This mitigation affects about ¼ mile of road and is
limited to the areas where soil movement could be directed to any water. The
Forest hydrologist would identify the areas of concern;
BMW-0000420
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 17
2. No skidding down to FS Road # 3166 or jump up roads constructed from FS Road #
3166 up to treatment unit 13C within that portion of treatment unit 13C within the
Leverich Creek drainage;
3. Implement the following three riparian treatment strategies to protect watershed and
aquatic resource values: A) SMZ Guidelines: B) Modified SMZ Guidelines; and, C)
No Cut or Treatment Buffers. The selected treatment strategy is dependent on
location within the project area, proposed treatment type, and stream class (as defined
by the Streamside Management Zone Laws and Rules (DNRC 2006)). See Appendix
B for Best Management Practices and Streamside Management Zone and Modified
Streamside Management Zone guidelines.
Heritage Resources (Allen 2006)
1. An archaeologist and the sale administrator would flag off the one known
archeological site when work is in the vicinity to protect it from disturbance.
2. If any additional heritage assets should be encountered during the project, then
disturbing actions would be halted immediately and an archaeologist contacted.
Invasive Weeds (Councilman 2007) Based on suggestions and guidance in Clark (2003), USDA Forest Service, Guide to
Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (2001), and Forest Service Manual 2080 a number of
preventative actions would be implemented for this project.
1. To prevent the establishment and spread of weed infestations, include a timber
sale contract provision or contract clause in all vegetation management contracts
that includes washing of all wheeled or track type equipment that would be used
off roads. Equipment would be washed prior to entry onto the National Forest.
2. Conduct activity area surveys and treatment of weeds before activities commence.
3. Identify and avoid areas infested where activities could spread weed seeds.
Maintain weed-free equipment parking; helicopter refueling areas, equipment
staging areas, log landings, and area roads. Monitor for and eradicate new weeds
promptly.
4. Retain native vegetation in and around logging areas and minimize soil
disturbance by adhering to soil best management practices.
5. Minimize the period from end of logging to contract closure, re-vegetation, and/or
reforestation for long-term restoration (USDA Forest Service 2001). .
6. Post project weed suppression notices on all activity areas.
7. Use only certified weed-free seed for rehabilitation of disturbed sites. Refer to
local seeding guidelines for detailed procedures and appropriate mixes. Use
native seed only. Re-vegetation may include planting, seeding, fertilization, and
weed-free mulching as indicated by local prescriptions.
Effectiveness and financing: Washing vehicles is becoming common practice. Some
studies indicate weed seeds are being removed from mechanized equipment and
collected for disposal during weed washing (Wilson et. al 1999). The cost of washing
equipment is no longer an item that is appraised for in timber sale appraisals. While
there is no direct cost to the Government, we can assume the purchasers would reduce
BMW-0000421
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 18
their bids slightly to cover the cost of washing. This is not expected to be a
measurable cost.
Range (Clark 2007)
1. Fences on the Bozeman- Hyalite divide or pasture fences between pastures in the
Hyalite Canyon allotment would need to be protected during the fuels reduction
treatments or they would need to be reconstructed. If fuels treatments open up
natural boundaries on the Bozeman-Hyalite Divide, fences would need to be built
to replace the natural boundaries. In the Project Record, a map is provided to
show existing fences and natural boundaries.
Recreation (Cary 2007)
1. Bozeman Creek Trail/Road and Moser Creek Road would not both be closed at
the same time. Restrict helicopter logging operations and hauling such that both
major roads are not closed any one time during fuels management operations.
2. Post information at appropriate access points to inform the public of project
activities. Provide local media with updates about project work that may affect
the recreating public. Post warning signs notifying forest users of potential
hazards from fuel treatment activities when occurring adjacent to dispersed areas,
roads, and trails. If necessary, issue special orders (regulations) that temporarily
close some areas or routes to protect the public.
Roadless (Cary 2007)
1. Select cut trees to generally small diameter in the Inventoried Roadless Area to
minimize the immediate visual impact to naturalness and undeveloped character.
2. Minimize stump heights to 8” or less.
Scenery (Ruchman 2007) 1. Mark and thin the edges of all units that would be visible from key observation
points in such a way so that unit boundaries are not easily discernible after the
thinning work is accomplished. This means that no unit boundary edges visible from
key observation points should be straight lines, especially adjacent to city or private
land, where ownership boundaries are straight. In addition:
a. Where units border unthinned, dense forest land, the unit edges should be
irregularly shaped and feathered to be predominantly natural appearing.
Feathering means that a transition zone of uneven depth is created inside
the unit along the boundary in which the percent of tree removal should be
gradually decreased toward the unit boundary.
BMW-0000422
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 19
b. Where units border meadow or very open forest, the percent of tree
removal in the transition zone should be increased to visually tie into those
naturally open areas.
2. Within all units, where possible, leave trees with full crowns, as individuals or in
groups, to achieve the appearance of naturally open grown crowns.
3. Since the north edge of Unit 26 is very visible from the Gallatin Valley, create a
zone of transition into the adjacent dense forest to its north and to the west of Unit
33.
4. In unit #1B along the southwest side of Bozeman Creek Trail, stumps should be cut
as low as possible or angle cut away from viewers on the trail.
5. Where practical, all slash piles, decks and landings should be located out of sight in
the foreground of key observation points and heavily used recreation corridors and
areas. Where they cannot be located out of sight, they should be rehabilitated in
such a way that after work is completed, they would not visually dominate the seen
area.
6. Staging areas that are created by grading and flattening, or that receive enough use to
compact soil or mix top and subsoil, and large burn piles that are visible from the
Hyalite Road, Langohr Campground, the Bozeman Creek Trail, Forest Trails #428
or #435, should be recontoured to natural contours and seeded so that within one
year of this rehabilitation work the site is fairly natural-appearing.
7. After thinning work is completed, those segments of temporary roads that are
immediately visible and adjacent to FS roads and trails, especially FS Trail 428 and
the Leverich Creek Trail #435, should be recontoured.
8. An emphasis will be placed on completing all slash burning and post thinning
cleanup as soon as practical in those areas in the immediate foreground in key visual
and heavily used recreation areas and corridors.
9. Fire control lines installed prior to burning will tie in, where possible, to existing
opening and topographic features to create more natural looking burn patterns.
Monitoring Requirements
The Forest landscape architect or Forest silviculturalis will work with the presale forester
to complete the following monitoring.
1. During marking of the units, monitoring should be done to ensure that trees with
sufficient crowns are being left and that the mix between full crowned individuals
and tree clumps marked to retain are achieving the appropriate transition from
dense forest into thinned and open areas.
BMW-0000423
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 20
Soil (Shovic 2007, Keck 2009)
1. Gallatin National Forest Soils Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
incorporated in project design (Keck, 2009; Story, 2006b) in order to limit
detrimental disturbance associated with implementation. Appendix B provides a
listing of Best Management Practices.
2. In units with previous harvest or temporary road construction that would exceed
the 15% detrimental soil disturbance regional soil standard, restoration procedures
will be applied to ameliorate past disturbances. The restoration actions will be
sufficient to reduce the effects of previous harvest. Tables in the Soils section in
Chapter 3 estimate the amount of restoration per alternative.
Monitoring Requirements
To verify the predictions used in this analysis, and to provide information for
future work, soil quality monitoring will conducted by the Forest Soil Scientist on
selected harvest units where tractor-based harvest systems were used. Monitoring
procedures will follow the current Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol
(Page-Dumroese, et.al. 2009). Harvest units selected for detailed sampling will be
determined based on the professional judgment of the Forest Soil Scientist. An
initial assessment will be made one year after harvesting and follow-up
monitoring conducted five years after harvest. In addition, monitoring will be
undertaken on a representative sample of burn units to test predictions of burning
effects at both the one year and five year intervals after treatment.
Water Quality (Story 2007)
1) Retain a no-burn buffer of at least 50’ for burn treatment areas adjacent to Bozeman
Creek, Hyalite Creek, and perennial tributaries.
2) Apply standard BT timber sale protection clauses to the commercial harvest activities
to protect against soil erosion and sedimentation. Include standard BMP’s for all
activities including Montana Streamside Management Act compliance rules.
3) Apply BMP's for Forestry in Montana (DNRC, 2004). These are incorporated into
Appendix B.
4) A slash filter windrow would be installed below temporary road B-50, within the
Leverich drainage, as needed. This mitigation affects about ¼ mile of road and is limited
BMW-0000424
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 21
to the areas where soil movement could be directed to any water. The Forest hydrologist
would identify the areas of concern (Alternative 5 and 6).
The Gallatin Forest Plan, Forest Wide Standards 10.2 (page II-23) requires that Best
Management Practices (BMP's) will be used in all Forest watersheds. The Montana Forestry
BMP's are included in Appendix BMP, which is required to be followed in all timber harvest
and road construction activities. Forest Plan Direction A.5 (page II-1) requires the Gallatin
NF to meet or exceed State of Montana water quality standards.
Monitoring and Monitoring Requirements
Water Quality/BMP's
At least 1 BMP review will be conducted for some of the thinning and prescribed burn units
as well as for some the temporary road segments. The BMP review team will use the
Montana BMP audit forms augmented by the additional BMP's and EA required mitigation
for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. The objective of the BMP review is to
document BMP and SMZ rule compliance and to validate the erosion and water quality
effects predicted by examination soil erosion, runoff and water quality response, and re-
vegetation of prescribed burns. A BMP review report, including observations and
recommendations, will be prepared by the Gallatin NF Hydrologist and submitted to the
Bozeman District Ranger.
Wildlife (Dixon 2008)
Northern Goshawk Nest Protection
• No treatment activity within a minimum buffer of 40 acres around known
occupied goshawk nest trees.
• No ground-disturbing activities within known occupied post-fledging areas (PFA)
from 15 April through 15 August. The PFA is an area of roughly 420 acres
surrounding an active nest site.
• To further minimize disturbance within the PFA for an occupied nest, establish a
"no-fly zone", 2,000 feet in all directions including above the nest, for the period
of 15 April through 15 August.
• Adapt thinning prescriptions in treatment units closest to known, occupied nest
sites so that the proportion of closed canopy (>= 50% canopy cover) habitat in an
estimated goshawk home range is within the range of habitat conditions (37-69%)
reported in the Northern Region Overview for goshawks.
Bald Eagle Nest Protection
From the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; Category C. Timber
Operations and Forestry Practices (USDI 2007:13)
• Avoid removal of overstory trees within 330 feet (100 m) of an active nest at any
BMW-0000425
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 22
time of the year
• Avoid timber harvest operations, including road construction and chain saw and
yarding operations, during the breeding season (1 Feb – 15 August [GYBEMP
1995:24]) within 660 feet (200 m) of an active nest.
• Selective thinning and prescribed burning should not occur during the breeding
season within 660 feet (200 m) of an active nest.
Grizzly Bear
• Within the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), helicopter logging must be completed in the
winter denning season or limited to one non-denning (March 1 to Nov. 30) season (FWS,
Biological Opinion; Terms and Conditions).
• Manage the schedule for completion of all helicopter logging to be completed in as few
days as possible. Track the number of helicopter logging flight days and reinitiate
conlustaion if the operations exceed a total of 144 days for the duration of the project
(USFS, Biological Assessment; FWS, Biological Opinion; Terms and Conditions).
• Use Broadcast burning to treat slash post-harvest to promote regeneration of vegetative
cover in all helicopter units (which includes all the treatment occurring within the
Inventoried Roadless Area (USFWS Biological Opinion; Conservation
Recommendations) ( NOTE: To meet the purpose and need for the project, within the
ground-based units, slash may be piled and burned).
• All activities associated with project implementation will be in compliance with Forest-
wide Food Storage Order requirements.
• Roads constructed for project activity should be designed with minimum handbook
standards necessary to accomplish the task, temporary in nature, and effectively gated to
restrict public motorized use. Once the activity is complete, these roads should be
permanently and effectively closed and re-vegetated. (GNF Travel Management Plan
FEIS, Detailed Description of the Alternatives, Chapter 1-31; also supported by the
USFWS Biological Opinion; Conservation Recommendations).
Big Game
• Maintain at least two thirds of the hiding cover associated with key habitat
components such as wet sites, wallow and mineral licks. (Gallatin Forest Plan p.
II-18)
Snag Retention
Forest Plan standard for snag retention is: leave an average of 30 snags (>= 18 feet tall
and >= 10” dbh) per 10 acres within harvest units. In addition, for Douglas fir and
subalpine fir on rocky or shallow soils, designate 60 live trees per 10 acres as
replacement trees for snags. Trees and snags with obvious large nest structures or
BMW-0000426
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 23
cavities should be left intact, with immediately surrounding vegetation retained to
provide security cover. (Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment No. 15)
In addition to Forest Plan standards, the following snag retention prescriptions will be
followed:
• Where existing snags would be removed for safety concerns, consider leaving the
snag(s) in a clump of live trees to meet snag retention objectives.
• Snag Retention Prescriptions by Forest Cover Type:
Douglas fir dominant: minimum of 40 snags (>= 10” dbh) per 10 acres, with at
least 20 larger (>= 15” dbh) snags per 10 acres
Lodgepole pine dominant: minimum of 50 snags (>= 10” dbh) per 10 acres.
• If site conditions do not provide adequate snags at the time of project
implementation, or if snags must be removed for safety reasons so that the above
conditions cannot be met, apply one of the following measures:
1. Retain live replacement trees in the appropriate snag size category for the
vegetation type. Leave at least twice as many live replacement trees as the
number of snags recommended for the vegetation type.
2. Create snags by killing trees after harvest is complete, striving for the number
and size class listed above by vegetation type.
Monitoring Requirements
• Survey treatment units upon completion of prescriptions. If site conditions do
not provide adequate snags after project implementation; i.e. if the above snag
retention prescriptions are not met, then either ensure that there are at least twice
as many live replacement trees as the number of snags recommended for the
vegetation type, or if snags are completely absent in post treatment units, create
snags by killing trees after harvest is complete, striving for the number and size
class listed above by vegetation type.
.
Sensitive Plants
Should sensitive plant species be found in any proposed treatment units or associated
with any proposed access features (e.g. project roads, helicopter landings), plant
populations will be protected with area and/or timing restrictions. This measure is
consistent with direction for management of sensitive species (FSM 2670).
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives
that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in
response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for
achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the
scope of Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, duplicative of the alternatives
considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary
BMW-0000427
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 24
environmental harm. Therefore, four alternatives were considered, but dismissed from
detailed study for reasons summarized below.
Scoping Alternative
This alternative was the original proposal presented by the Forest Service for the initial
scoping effort. (GNF, 9/2005) It was developed to achieve the purpose and need outlined
in Chapter 1 of the EIS. Fuel reduction activities being considered included treating up to
6,000 total acres, including a small portion of the Gallatin Divide Inventoried Roadless
Area in the Bozeman Creek watershed, and treating up to 3,000 acres in the Hyalite
Creek watershed with a combination of prescribed burning, thinning, brush cutting, and
commercial tree harvest. This proposal was a broad description for the area proposed for
treatment and the types of treatments. It was the starting point from which Alternative 2-
5 were developed. Alternative 2 is the detailed description of this conceptual alternative
and was considered in detail.
Water Treatment Facility Improvements Alternative
During scoping, comments were submitted that asked the Forest Service to consider an
alternative that improved water treatment facilities such as building sediment traps,
upgrades to treatment plant, and wells. The intent was to focus mitigation on the City
facilities to address the purpose and need rather than National Forest System (NFS) lands.
The recommendations were shared with the City of Bozeman for consideration. These
options are not within the decision authority for the Forest Service so this alternative is
not within the scope of the decision. The City of Bozeman is considering upgrades to
water management system and the suggestions provided by the public were forwarded to
the City staff.
The City commissioned a facility plan evaluation of the treatment plant with the long
term potential to convert from direct filtration to conventional or membrane filtration.
The City of Bozeman Water Facility Master Plan (City of Bozeman, 2006)
http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/engineering/documents/Water_Facility_Plan.pdf
contains an extensive analysis of potential water treatment upgrade alternatives. The
Bozeman City Commission endorsed the Facility Master Plan preferred alternative,
which is the construction of 22 million gallons per day filtration plant ultimately
expandable to 36 million gallons per day. A raw water storage pond, which could be
used to store up to a week of water in case wildfire compromised raw water quality, was
not endorsed by the City of Bozeman due to excessive cost and doubts as to the
effectiveness of such a raw water storage pond in the event of a major forest fire. The
Water Treatment plant will initiate pilot testing of the membrane filter technology during
2007 with the goal of construction of the membrane filtration plant in 5-6 years.
In discussions with the City of Bozeman Water Treatment Plant personnel, the upgrading
of the Water treatment plant will allow better filtering of pathogens and sediment but
could still have operational problems during periods of high turbidity such as an intense
rain event after wildfire. The treatment plant upgrade will not alleviate the need for
reduction of wildfire potential in the source area watersheds - Bozeman Creek and
BMW-0000428
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 25
Hyalite Creek. The City acknowledges it will have to consider several operational
changes in the event of a fire within the watershed, based on the location and severity of
the fire. The City is also considering the diversification of water sources as well as other
water system improvements that will fit with their need to expand and protect their water
source.
The purpose of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project is to begin reducing the
potential severity and extent of future wildland fires in the watershed and begin creating
vegetative and fuel conditions that would reduce the risk of excess sediment and ash
reaching the municipal water treatment plant in the event of a wildfire. The role the
Forest Service has is to manage NFS lands in a way that minimizes the risk of excessive
sediment, ash or other contaminants reaching the facility from NFS lands.
While the City of Bozeman and the Forest Service are working together, each entity has a
unique role. The Gallatin NF does not have jurisdiction on City of Bozeman water system
operations.
Wildland Fire Use Alternative
During scoping the Forest Service was asked to consider an alternative that needed little
investment such as fire use.
Currently the project area is within Fire Management Unit #3 Gallatin Protection in the
Gallatin National Forest Fire Management Plan. This FMU is designated
Interface/Intermix meaning WUI, Municipal Watershed, campground, dispersed
recreation and heavy public use. Wildland Fire use is not an Appropriate Management
Response (AMR) option based on the 1987 GNF FP FEIS and the values at risk. .
According to the Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987) the Management areas (MA) in the
project area identifies fire suppression as the Appropriate Management Response. The
Forest can utilize 'contain' and ‘confine' strategies relative to wildland fire before and
after fire season (May 1 to Sept 30). Otherwise, during fire season the AMR is control.
Human caused ignitions would require a control strategy, unless safety to firefighters or
values at risk allow for safer strategies/tactics, and cost considerations. Planned ignition
(RX fire) is an option open to the area and is under consideration where appropriate.
Wildland Urban Interface Alternative
During scoping the Forest Service was asked to consider fuel reduction treatment only in
the Wildland Urban Interface immediately around homes. Treatment in the WUI could
easily be considered in a stand alone decision tiered to the current analysis. However, the
purpose and need for action is primarily around protection of the Bozeman Municipal
Water Treatment Plant and reducing the risk to the Municipal Watershed. Elimination of
treatment outside of the WUI would not meet the purpose and need defined for this effort.
BMW-0000429
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Comparison of Alternatives_____________________________________________
This section provides a comparison Alternatives in four tables. Table 2.1 Actions Proposed for each Alternative, Table 2.2 Comparison of
Measures of Fire Behavior, Fire Size and Probability related to the Purpose and Need for Action, Table 2.3 How well the Alternatives
would meet the Purpose and Need for Action, Table 2.4 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision.
Information in Table 2-4. Comparison of Issues is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be
distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. These are the issues that would be factors in the decision.
Table 2-1. Actions Proposed for each Alternative
Alternative
Acres Miles
Mechanical thin of
small trees less than 6”
in diameter, pile and
burn
Prescribed burn Partial harvest by
mechanied thin trees
over 7” in diameter.
Temporary Road
Construction
Alternative 1 (No
Actions) 0 0 0 0
Alternative 2
(Proposed Action) 1150 850 1926 7.2
Alternative 3 1150 1100 3621 13.5
Alternative 4
(Prescribed burn/No
logging or roads
Alternative) 1250 2046 0 0
Alternative 5 (DEIS
Preferred Alternative) 1156 950 3708 6.9
Alternative 6
(FEIS Preferred) 1117 1575 2045 7.1
Acres proposed for partial harvest that are determined to be unsuitable due to difficult terrain or lack of commercial value would be
considered for thinning and piling of the trees less than 7 inches in diameter. The variation in acreage is due to the large unit size. Within
the proposed units there is variation in terrain and vegetation type, density, and size.
BMW-0000430
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 27
Table 2.2: Measures of Fire Behavior, Fire Size and Fire Probability Related to the Purpose and Need for Action. See Fuels Section
in Chapter 3 for more detail.
Measure & Desired
Condition
Outcome Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed
Action
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Prescribed
Burn/No Logging
or Roads
Alternative 5
DEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 6
FEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Fuel Model
Conversion
From Fuel Model 10
to 8 or 184.
Crown fire potential is
reduced.
Fire behavior in FM184
/8 is expected to have
lower flame lengths and
spotting distance is
reduced.
0 acres 3239 acres 5176 acres 1571 acres 4743 acres 3647 acres
BMW-0000431
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 28
Table 2.2: Measures of Fire Behavior, Fire Size and Fire Probability Related to the Purpose and Need for Action. See Fuels Section
in Chapter 3 for more detail.
Measure & Desired
Condition
Outcome Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed
Action
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Prescribed
Burn/No Logging
or Roads
Alternative 5
DEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 6
FEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Crown Fire
Potential Acres with fuel
treatments that alter
the expected fire type
from crown fire to
surface fire. The acres
in this row indicate a
reduction in crown fire
potential so a higher
number is desirable.
Surface fire indicates less
severe and less intense
fire. The potential extent
of fire is reduced if
surface fire conditions are
maintained. These fires
can be more effectively
suppressed and they pose
less risk to safety.
0 acres 3239 acres 5176 acres 2046 acres 4743 acres 3642 acres
BMW-0000432
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 29
Table 2.2: Measures of Fire Behavior, Fire Size and Fire Probability Related to the Purpose and Need for Action. See Fuels Section
in Chapter 3 for more detail.
Measure & Desired
Condition
Outcome Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed
Action
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Prescribed
Burn/No Logging
or Roads
Alternative 5
DEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 6
FEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Potential Fire Size 1
85th weather
percentile
97th weather
percentile
The lowest potential
fire size is most
desirable.
% Reduction in
potential fire size
% Reduction in
crown fire
These measures
indicate potential fire
severity and extent of
fire.
The highest reduction
in % potential fire size
and % of crown fire
indicate less severe
effects since a more
surface fire is expected
to burn.
2278 acres
7670 acres
0%
0%
1462 acres
5151 acres
33-36%
39-54%
950 acres
3943 acres
49-58%
56-70%
1929 acres
5939 acres
15-23%
30-32%
957 acres
3693 acres
52-58%
59-70%
1041 acres
3795 acres
51-54%
56-74%
1 This estimate is relative to the expected/modeled fire size indicated for this alternative.
BMW-0000433
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 30
Table 2.2: Measures of Fire Behavior, Fire Size and Fire Probability Related to the Purpose and Need for Action. See Fuels Section
in Chapter 3 for more detail.
Measure & Desired
Condition
Outcome Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed
Action
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Prescribed
Burn/No Logging
or Roads
Alternative 5
DEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 6
FEIS
Preferred
Alternative
Probability of stand
replacement crown
fire.
The higher the (-)
number the better.
These number show a
reduction in fire
intensity and severity,
extent of fire and
undesirable spread.
6-7%
Bozeman
Creek
8-9%
Hyalite
Creek
-7%
-32%
-22%
-32%
-10%
-29%
-11%
-33%
-11%
-33%
Flame length (FL)
Overall range of
flame length.
Lower numbers are
desirable.
Average flame
length
FL of less than 4
foot are most
desirable to enable
direct effect fire
suppression and
lower risk to
firefighters.
Lower flame lengths
enable effective fire
suppression and are
indicate a safer
environment for
firefighters and the
public.
0-63 feet
3-5 feet
0-27 feet
3-4 feet
0-29 feet
2 feet
0-43 feet
2 feet
0-19 feet
1.5 feet
0-35 feet
2 feet
BMW-0000434
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 31
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Water Quality 3
(Projected sediment in
% over natural)
(The Forest Plan (FP)
standard allows no more
than 30% over natural)
Hyalite Drainage
Bozeman Creek
Drainage
Leverich Drainage
Meets FP
Standards in
All drainages.
5.8%
7.9%
8.4%
Meets FP
Standards in All
drainages.
7.8%
10.7%
33.2%
Does Not Meet
FP Standards
in All
drainages
10.0%
12.2 %
34.9%
Meets FP Standards in All
drainages.
7.1%
10.6%
14.8%
Meets FP
Standards in All
drainages.
7.6%
11.2%
12.0%
Meets FP
Standards in all
drainages.
7.1%
10.8%
10.3%
2 The Fire and Fuels Issue is disclosed in Table 2.2 and 2.3 when comparing the purpose and need for action.
3 Sediment yield as measured percent over natural in tons/year modeled sediment in Bozeman, Hyalite, and Leverich Creek’s is a management indicator for water
quality.
BMW-0000435
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 32
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Westslope Cutthroat
Trout Habitat in
Leverich Creek4
Compliance with Forest
Plan Standards and the
Memorandum of
understanding for the
Conservation
Agreement(MOUCA)
Meets FP
Standard
Meets the
intent of the
MOUCA
Meets FP Standard
Does not meet the
intent of the
MOUCA
Does not meet
FP standard
Does not meet
the intent of
the MOUCA
Meets FP Standard
Meets the intent of the
MOUCA
Meets FP
Standard
Meets the intent
of the MOUCA
Meets FP
Standard
Meets the intent
of the MOUCA
4 1. Percent over Natural (or Reference) Sediment Delivery rates compared to the standard established for Class A streams. Meeting the standard would assure that
the 90% spawning habitat management objective is being achieved. (FP standard)
2. Meet the intent of Implementation Strategy for Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement (MOUCA) for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in
Montana by protecting all pure and slightly introgressed (90% or greater purity) westslope cutthroat trout populations and ensuring the long-term persistence of
westslope cutthroat within their native range (Powell 2002). Because Leverich Creek is the only project area stream that contains westslope cutthroat trout, this
indicator only applies to this watershed.
BMW-0000436
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 33
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Scenery – Do the
treatments meet Forest
Plan Visual Quality
Objectives (VQO)?5
Yes Yes, except 5 units
Yes, except 10
units
Yes
Yes
Treatments
would improve
the exiting
scenery
condition near
units 13 and 25.
Yes, except for
4 units
Are wilderness
attributes maintained?
No impact
Yes, but there
would be short
term impact to
solitude and
primitive
recreation
opportunities.
Yes, but there
would be short
term impact to
solitude and
primitive
recreation
opportunities.
Yes, but there would be
short term impact to
solitude and primitive
recreation opportunities.
Yes, but there
would be short
term impact to
solitude and
primitive
recreation
opportunities.
Yes, but there
would be short
term impact to
solitude and
primitive
recreation
opportunities.
5 The indicator for measuring potential effects to the scenery resource is the assigned Forest Plan standard for visual quality (Visual Quality Objective) that applies to
each area where fuel reduction is being proposed. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 3, in the Scenery section on Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy and Forest
Plan Direction.
BMW-0000437
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 34
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Acres of Gallatin Fringe
IRA that would be
impacted.
0 acres
0 acres
681 acres of
prescribed burning
468 acres of
partial harvest
895 acres of
prescribed
burning
738 acres of
partial harvest
1147 acres of prescribed
burning
0 acres of partial harvest
941 acres of
prescribed
burning
666 acres of
partial harvest
1139 acres of
prescribed
burning
200 acres of
partial harvest
BMW-0000438
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 35
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Effects to unroaded
lands
Naturalness
Undeveloped character
Primitive recreation
opportunities
Special features
Manageability
No impact
Short term effects to
natural processes,
undeveloped character
from vegetation
activities
Potential long term
effects to natural
processes,
undeveloped character
from 2 mi of
temporary road
construction. No
effect on
manageability
Short term effects
to natural
processes,
undeveloped
character from
vegetation
activities
Potential long
term effects to
natural processes,
undeveloped
character from
2.75 mi of
temporary road
construction. No
effect on
manageability
Short term effects to natural
processes, undeveloped character
from vegetation
No long term effects to natural
processes. No effect on
manageability
Short term effects
to natural
processes,
undeveloped
character from
vegetation
Potential long term
effects to natural
processes,
undeveloped
character from
2.75 mi of
temporary road
construction. No
effect on
manageability
Short term effects
to natural
processes,
undeveloped
character from
vegetation
Potential long term
effects to natural
processes,
undeveloped
character from
2.25 mi of
temporary road
construction. No
effect on
manageability
Canada Lynx – Would
treatments meet the
direction in the
Northern Rockies Lynx
Amendment?6
Yes Yes, with proper
documentation.
Yes, with
proper
documentation.
Yes, with proper
documentation.
Yes, with
proper
documentation.
Yes, with
proper
documentation
6 The standards in the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment are tied to habitat standards for denning, foraging and amount of unsuitable habitat. These standards and
potential impacts are discussed in Chapter 3 in the Canada Lynx section.
BMW-0000439
Final Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Ch 2 - 36
Table 2.3 Comparison of Issues by Alternative that would be Factors in the Decision
Issue and Measure2
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Proposed Action Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Prescribed burn/No
logging or Roads
Alternative 5
(DEIS
Preferred)
Alternative 6
(FEIS
Preferred)
Northern Goshawk
Does the Alternative
meet the habitat
guidelines?7
Not impacted
Yes
Least impacted of
the action
alternatives.
Yes
More impacted
than action
Alternatives 2
& 4.
Yes
Less impacted than
Alternative 3 & 5
Yes
Most impacted
Yes
Less impacted
than Alternative
3 & 5
Yes
7 The Northern Goshawk section in Chapter 3 discusses the potential effects and habitat guidelines in detail.
BMW-0000440